Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	master_n	obedience_n	servant_n	2,872	5	7.2086	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85397	Impvtatio fidei. Or a treatise of justification wherein ye imputation of faith for righteousness (mentioned Rom: 43.5.) is explained & also yt great question largly handled. Whether, ye actiue obedience of Christ performed to ye morall law, be imputed in justification or noe, or how it is imputed. Wherein likewise many other difficulties and questions touching ye great busines of iustification viz ye matter, & forme thereof etc are opened & cleared. Together wth ye explication of diuerse scriptures, wch partly speake, partly seeme to speake to the matter herein discussed by John Goodwin, pastor in Coleman-street.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.; Glover, George, b. ca. 1618.	1642 (1642)	Wing G1172; Thomason E139_1; ESTC R15925	312,570	494

justification I propound after this manner That righteousnesse which will not fit and furnish all beleevers with all points or parts of that righteousnesse which the Law requires of them cannot be imputed unto them unto justification But the obedience that Christ performed to the mor all Law is such a righteousnesse as will not fit and furnish all beleevers with all points of righteousnesse which the Law requires of them Therfore it cannot be imputed to beleevers for their justification The reason of the former Proposition is because a perfect and compleat legall righteousnesse and such certainly I meane perfect and compleat that that justifieth must of necessity be requires a precise punctuall and through obedience unto all things in the Law which any way concernes a man to doe If there be but a letter jot or title wanting in any man righteousnesse of all that was his duty to doe that righteousnesse is not at any hand for his iustification The curse of the Law and eternall vengeance will breake in upon a man body and soule aswell through the smallest and least-imaginable defects of a legall righteousnesse as through wider breaches and greater transgressions in case a man hath not wherewith to secure himselfe otherwise Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to doe them Gal. 3.10 Therfore there is no escaping the curse of the La●● by the law except a mans obedience be absolutely absolute aswell for constancie as univ●●se in ad things that are written viz. with reference to him and 〈◊〉 calling For otherwise there may be a struct and compleat I 〈◊〉 righteousnesse with 〈◊〉 the doing 〈…〉 Law in ca●e they have no 〈…〉 As for instance Adam might have performed and accordingly have hin still Justified by a compleat Legall righteousnesse and yet never have performed many duties which the Law required of Eve for the continuance of her iustification So Christ ful●filled all righteousnesse as himselfe faith it became him to doe and consequently held an exact conformity with the Law so that neither Man nor God himselfe could rebuke him of sinne and yet the Law requires many things of many others both Men and Women which Christ never performed as will appeare in the demonstration of the latter Proposition which is at hand For the truth therfore of this Proposition that the righteousnesse performed by Christ unto the Morall Law SECT 2 will not sit and furnish all beleevers with all parts of such a righteousnesse as the Law requires of them it is so full of its owne light that further proofe will but runne over How many duties are Servants indebted unto their Masters after the flesh by the obligation of the Law which Christ never discharged or performed as namely that they should be obedient unto them with feare and trembling Eph. 6.5 Againe Wives charged by the Law with many points of obedience towards their Husbands yea and Husbands with some towards their Wives which certainly Christ never performed for them yea he expressely declined and refused the doing of some things as lying without the verge of his Calling which the Law requires as matters of speciall dutie from others When he was desired Luk. 12 13.14 to do Justice or take up a controversie betweene a man and his Brother his answere was Man who made me a Judge or divider over you Implying that he would meddle with no acts of righteousnesse that lay without the precincts of his Calling And indeed if he had though it was unpossible that ever his foote should have been taken in that snare it had overthrowne the infinit benefit that now redounds unto the world from those acts of righteousnesse which were performed by him in his Calling So when the people would have taken him and made him King Joh. 6. he absolutly refused and refusing the office of a King doubtlesse he would not take upon him the execution Therefore what righteousnesse should Kings and Magistrates have imputed unto them from Christ to make them just and righteous in their Callings when Christ himselfe refused to performe those acts of righteousnesse which are proper thereunto That which never was done or acted by Christ cannot be imputed that which never had a being is not capable of an act of imputation to passe upon it It may be some will object SECT 3 that Love is the fulfilling of the Law for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law Rom. 13.8 and this fulfilling of the Law by Love is such a righteousnesse as will fit all persons of all Callings and relations in the world whatsoever Therefore the perfect Love of Christ may be imputed for righteousnesse unto all though particular and proper acts of obedience otherwise be wanting But to this I Answere First howsoever Love may be termed an Evangelicall keeping or fulfilling of the Law because God accepteth of it graciously wheressoever he findeth it in truth and rewar deth it accordingly yet is it not a strict literall and legall fulfilling of the Law it is not such a fulfilling of it as will hold out weight and measure for any mans justification in a Covenant of works For first the Law requires many duties from men and seizeth upon them with the Curse immediatly upon the first nonconti● 〈…〉 ●al t●in●s N●w Love is but one duty 〈…〉 and therefore cannot be many much 〈…〉 Love were such a fu filling of 〈…〉 ●●q●ired in a legall justification 〈…〉 beleevers be justified not by an 〈…〉 by a pers nal righteousnesse because no 〈◊〉 is a true beleever but he that ●oves his Brother truely and whose Faith worketh by such love Thirdly and lastly if the Love of Christ were capa●le of that imputation for righteousnesse that is pretended then will it follow at least according to the principl ● of that Opinion against which we disput● that the whole active obedience of Christ I meane all that righteousnesse of his which stood in holy actions conformable to the Law was in vaine be cause there is no other possible necessity granted of this righteousnesse of Christ by these men but only for imputation Therefore Secondly to the objection I answere yet againe that where the Scripture calleth Love the fulfi ling of the Law it speaketh only of that part of the Law which we call the second Table as is no whit lesse then evident in the place last named Rom. 13.8.9 But that fulfilling of the Law which claimes the honour of a justification whether by imputation or personall performance must comprehend as well a fulfilling of the first as of the second Table Thirdly and lastly that proposition Love is the fulfilling of the Law is not propositio sormalis but causalis consecutiva as Logiciaxs speake that is such a proposition wherein one thing is said to be another not because it is precisely the same in nature and being with it but because it is the cause of it and so hath the being of the other vertually in it

of it beyond the person of the fulfiller Some indeed conceive that Adams standing in obedience to the Law had bin the standing and perpetuall confirmation in grace of all his posterity If this opinion could be made to appeare any thing more then conjecturall Divinitie I grant that then in respect of the intent and purpose of God the righteousnesse of the Law had been as imputable as the transgression of it but this will not prove it such in the nature of it but only by way of Covenant and so the consequence in the proposition will still languish and be infirme But though I can be confident with Paul to call Christ the last Adam 1 Cor. 15.45 Yet I am somwhat tender to call Adam the first Christ To say that Adam by his righteousnesse should have merited the justification of himselfe and all his posterity is I take it to make him somwhat more then a figure of him that was to come But to say that by his transgression he merited the condemnation both of himselfe and posterity is no such hard saying I conceive in the cares of any man Therefore however the righteousnesse of the Law is not as imputable as the transgression of it Secondly whereas demand was made SECT 3 by way of absolute confirmation of that former proposition what should make any such difference betweene the obedience of the Law and the transgression of the Law that the former should not be as imputable as the latter the obedience as the transgression I answere there may be this conceived as a ground of difference betweene them in that respect Sinne or disobedience to a Law is ever greater in ratione demeriti in way of demerit or desert of punishment then obedience or subjection to a Law is in ratione meriti in deserving a reward One that takes a purse or murders a man by the high way side deserveth to receive more in punishment then a thousand deserve in reward that suffer men to travaile peaceably by them Though he that dishonestly refuseth to pay a debt where it is due may deservedly be cast into prison yet it doth not follow that he that keeps touch and payeth at his day deserves to be exalted to a Throne So might Adam by his transgression of the Law merit death and condemnation to himselfe and posterity and yet not have merited life and salvation to both by his obedience The reason of which difference is evident because if he had obeyed and kept the Law he had only done that which was his duty to doe and this by our Saviours rule Luk 17.10 makes but an unprofitable servant i. I conceive is no ground to demand or challenge any great matters at his masters hand except it be by Covenant or promise from him Adams obedience to the Law was a debt due unto God from him severall waies and in sundry respects or considerations First God was his soveraigne Lord and had absolut power over him to command him what service or obedience he pleased Secondly he was his maker and Creator and had given him his being and in this respect had full right and title to imploy him as he pleased Thirdly God had bin liberall and exceeding bountifull unto him many waies he created him in his owne image and likenesse furnished him with principles of righteousnesse made him Lord over the works of his hand placed him in a Paradise of all delight and contentment In all these respects Adam was a debtor yea and more then a debtor unto God of that obedience unto his Law which he required of him Now the greater debtor Adam was unto God the more and greater bands and ingagements were upon him to make good that obedience which God required of him to his Law the lesse meritorious had this obedience bin in case Adam had stood and performed it and the more demeritorious also was his transgression and disobedience Therefore that consequence in the major proposition of the objection If the transgression of the Law be imputable then is the obedience imputable also is so farre from being legitimate and solid that the imputablenesse of the transgression of it rather overthroweth the imputablenesse of the obedience of it then any waies proveth or establisheth it For the more imputable that is punishable the transgression of it is the lesse imputable that is rewardable is the obedience of it So that you see now we have touch'd the hollow of the right thigh of the Objection how it halts right downe upon it And you see withall how we might fairely and honestly discharge our selves from having any thing more to doe with the Minor Proposition or with the instance of the imputation of Adam's sin which was insisted upon for the proofe of it because if either Proposition be disabled the glory of the whole Argument is layed in the dust Notwithstanding because the imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie as it is ordinarily phrased is conceived to be a master veyne in this Controversie and is frequently produced to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by way of analogie or proportion I shall be willing to lay downe with as much brevitie and plainenesse as I can how and in what sense onely either the Scriptures themselves or sound reason will countenance the notion of that imputation The issue will be that neither the one nor the other will be found either to owne or favour any other imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity then we have hitherto granted of Christs righteousnesse to those that beleeve The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed i. is made over or given to those that beleeve not in the letter or formality of it as hath bin often said but in blessings priviledges and benefits purchased of God by the merit or mediation of it So the sinne of Adam is imputed to his posterity not in the letter and formality of it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it which is the imputation commonly urged but in the demerit of it i. in the curse or punishment due to it or deserved by it Therfore as concerning this imputation of Adams sin I answere First the Scripture no where affirms either the imputation of Adams sin to his posterity or of the righteousnesse of Christ to those that beleeve neither is the phrase or manner of such speaking any waies agreeable to the Dialect or language of the Holy Ghost For still in the Scriptures whersoever the word or term of IMPUTING is used it is only applyed unto or spoken of somthing of the same persons to whom the imputation is said to be made and never to my remembrance to or of any thing of anothers Rom. 4.3 Abraham beleeved God and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousnesse i. his own beleeving was imputed to him not another mans So verse 5. But to him that worketh not but beleeveth His Faith is IMPUTED to him for